Loading ITAT cases…
141 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order liable to be quashed. Consequently, the additions made on merit became academic.
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income was not voluntary but made under compulsion due to the search and doubt over the genuineness of expenditure. The presumption of concealment under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) is attracted when income assessed is higher than returned income, irrespective of voluntary surrender.
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income was not voluntary but made under compulsion due to the search and doubt over the genuineness of expenditure. The presumption of concealment under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) is attracted when income assessed is higher than returned income, irrespective of voluntary surrender.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by relying solely on a previous year's order without independent findings for the current year. The exclusions of BVG India Ltd. and Just Dial Ltd. as comparables were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order liable to be quashed. Consequently, the grounds challenging the additions on merit became academic.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was invalid due to lack of application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee's secretary. The core issue of disallowing deduction on interest income from nationalized banks under Section 80P was raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate unsecured loans and their genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to consider the material and evidence placed on record by the assessee, including financial statements, bank statements, and confirmations, before making the addition. This failure to consider the assessee's submissions vitiated the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in adjudicating the appeals. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeals solely based on a remand report and the ratio of 'PCIT Vs Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.', concluding there was an absence of incriminating documents. However, the Tribunal found that the remand reports, when read in conjunction with the seized material, statements, and assessment orders, clearly indicated the presence of incriminating material. The CIT(A) had misread the remand reports, which actually confirmed the existence of incriminating material with adverse findings against the assessees. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not stating the point of determination, decision, and clear reasons. Citing precedents like 'Pankaj Vs Ne-AC' (Bom) and 'Chennai Silk VS Asstt Commissioner (ST-FAC)' (Mad), the Tribunal held that orders passed without considering material on record are bad in law. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law, with directions to grant virtual hearings and pass speaking orders.
The Tribunal held that the surrender of income was not voluntary but made under compulsion due to the search and doubt over the genuineness of expenditure. The presumption of concealment under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) is attracted when income assessed is higher than returned income, irrespective of voluntary surrender.
The ITAT Pune Bench held that it does not have jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer's location determines the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Bench. The appeal was therefore dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that even without 12A registration, the Assessing Officer cannot tax total receipts and must consider allowable expenditures. The case was set aside for de novo adjudication to allow the assessee to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid self-assessment tax and TDS prior to the notice under Section 148, and was residing abroad. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no tax sought to be evaded and deleted the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was bad in law as it was passed in the name of a deceased individual without impleading the legal heir. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the application for regular registration was not time-barred as it was filed within the stipulated period from the grant of provisional registration. The rejection on the grounds of limitation was unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that there were sufficient reasons for the delay and no malafide intention. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal found that while the business transfer was claimed, the due process was not followed, and the CIT(A) did not adequately address whether the cash deposits originated from the company's sales or if sufficient cash was available in the company's books. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit. It found the transaction dubious, citing the suspicious financial status of M/s AB Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and the lack of clear justification for the payment method.
The Tribunal held that once the AO accepted part of the cash book entries, there was no specific reason to disbelieve the remaining entries without further evidence. Following judicial precedents, the addition made by the AO was deemed unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a bank, as its banking license was cancelled. Following precedents, it ruled that interest income earned from investments made from business income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was bad in law as it was passed in the name of a deceased individual. Therefore, the order was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding penalty on nominal membership fees as the Assessing Officer had not levied penalty on this issue. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order to that extent was bad-in-law.
The Tribunal, in this case, has not yet provided its decision. The judgment is still under analysis and the final holding is not available in the provided text.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits made out of surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a). It followed precedents from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and the ITAT Pune Bench.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on deposits made out of surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a). The Tribunal followed precedents from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and its own Pune Bench.
The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in disallowing the exemption claim as it failed to consider the entire return of income, including the exempt income schedule. The adjustment made by the CPC was beyond its jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a).
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits made out of surplus funds is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a). It followed precedents from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and the ITAT Pune Bench.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The assessee's voluntary statement during the survey, which was not retracted, was considered to have evidentiary value. The borewell business income was also confirmed.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of excess sugarcane price paid, citing Section 36(1)(xvii) of the IT Act. However, it directed the deletion of the addition for sugar sold at a concessional rate to non-members, finding the AO's basis for addition incorrect.
The Tribunal found that while the AO did not reject the books of account, the assessee failed to substantiate the huge turnover and corresponding purchases made after installing a new machine. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the written submissions and evidence filed by the assessee. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT, Exemption, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide the required details and respond to notices without adjournment.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the land was a capital asset and not stock-in-trade. The Tribunal noted the long holding period, lack of developmental activity, and consistency in treating similar transactions as capital gains in prior and subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of surrendered income by invoking Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee had provided particulars of land transactions at the time of the survey, establishing the source of the cash receipts.
The ITAT found that the assessee had provided sufficient cause for the delay by submitting an affidavit and a medical certificate. Therefore, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, particularly the acceptance of the land as agricultural in a co-owner's assessment. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the interest earned by the assessee from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed precedents from the High Court and its own benches on this matter.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including customer ledger accounts and KYC details. Since the Assessing Officer had not verified these details, the case was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case due to issues with e-proceedings and incorrect email addresses used for notices. Therefore, the order of the First Appellate Authority was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the delay should have been considered by the CIT(A)/NFAC, especially given the Supreme Court's directions regarding COVID-19 related delays. The CIT(A)/NFAC also failed to consider the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a sufficient and fair opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication by the CIT(Exemption) after providing a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the addition was arbitrary and without basis, as the method of calculating closing stock difference from bank statements is not recognized in accounting standards. The Tribunal also noted that the AO accepted the entire sales, even though most bills lacked customer addresses.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a section code in Form 10AB was a clerical error and not fatal to the application. The CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect.